Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

rogueengine.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 384 posts

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#71

Post by capitainenemo »

jbombadil wrote: post #67

As a consumer, I understand the need of a native app for something that is performance intensive or that requires a level of OS access that the website doesn’t provide. OTOH, in tired of everyone pushing apps that could easily be a website. I had an xfinity technician aggressively pushing me to install their xfi app when they came to install the service. They told me it was the only good way to configure the WiFi (!)…

Definitely not necessary for internet service alone. You also don't need their modem. Just buy your own. Cheaper in the long run and a bit more control over the device. Never had a tech push me into installing anything either.

But, I guess if you're paying for one for one of their all-in-one packages where the service is managing voip/streaming/tv/internet I guess I can see their equipment and management tool might be necessary. Wouldn't know, have avoided all that. Try to keep them just as an ISP.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#73

Post by amelius »

gazchop wrote: post #2

I disagree. The problem is more nuanced. A well implemented (native) app is always better than a well implemented web site. The problem is poorly implemented apps which are just UI wrappers hitting dumb APIs or embedding entire web stacks which hit dumb APIs. A well implemented web app isn't much better than that. They don't work offline, they use way more resources than anything native and they leak data like a siev…

> A well implemented (native) app is always better than a well implemented web site.

No, because it fails to support the feature of running virtually anywhere.

For many people this is the #1 feature. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

Who cares about an app that is 2x faster but doesn't run?

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#75

Post by xemdetia »

jbombadil wrote: post #67

As a consumer, I understand the need of a native app for something that is performance intensive or that requires a level of OS access that the website doesn’t provide. OTOH, in tired of everyone pushing apps that could easily be a website. I had an xfinity technician aggressively pushing me to install their xfi app when they came to install the service. They told me it was the only good way to configure the WiFi (!)…

It has been crazy since before apps were 'apps.' It is a simple flow chart to me: do I need to interact more than once a month? No? Should probably be a website. The only time I want an app is for things I check more than 50 or so times a day, but that is because the UI for phones is awful and it is more convenient to context switch. Needless to say I find messaging apps to be the only ones that qualify.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#76

Post by syndicatedjelly »

gazchop wrote: post #2

I disagree. The problem is more nuanced. A well implemented (native) app is always better than a well implemented web site. The problem is poorly implemented apps which are just UI wrappers hitting dumb APIs or embedding entire web stacks which hit dumb APIs. A well implemented web app isn't much better than that. They don't work offline, they use way more resources than anything native and they leak data like a siev…

> A well implemented (native) app is always better than a well implemented web site.

Given that the entire article argues pretty strongly against this, you need to at minimum argue against the points posed, or present your arguments for why "well-implemented native apps are always better". It's not enough to make a straw man of the worst possible scenario and claim that it holds true for the general case as well.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#77

Post by syndicatedjelly »

nforgerit wrote: post #11

Whilst I agree with most of the points, author is making here I cannot help but make a small snarky remark that we, as a dev community, have been talking and dreaming about those talking points since the advent of html5 which is roughly 15ys. Marketing and availability, i.e. is it within reach when a customer thinks about it, are core problems needing to be solved.

Who is this unified hivemind dev community you speak of?

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#78

Post by summermusic »

I generally agree, but not for any critical workflow. You can't easily archive copies of web software. One day any website you rely on could introduce user-hostile regressions or simply disappear. Apps in the mobile ecosystem also have this problem, but at least you can archive and sideload old APKs on Android (for now).

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#79

Post by watermelon0 »

etothet wrote: post #70

This argument has existed since native apps were first introduced. One of the problems I see now is how horrible and frankly broken browsing the web can feel, especially on a mobile device. With all of the cookie confirmations due to GDPA and other ways mobile websites try to engage you (such as popups to subscribe to a newsletter or for discounts off your first order), some websites become almost unusable on a mobil…

There is no difference regarding GDPR/newsletter/discount popups between website and application. It's up to the owner if they want to nag users, and on which platforms.

(as for the GDPR, consent must explicitly be given in app as on the website, if they are doing tracking and sharing the data with 3rd parties)

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#80

Post by syndicatedjelly »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #44

Please stop making web apps, the web is for documents, not to be hijacked by Google in their attempt to wrestle personal computing from Microsoft. This issue becomes even worse if you try to make software that can both be used with keyboard & mouse and on a small touchscreen. With very few exceptions, you end up with something that works poorly with both interfaces, instead of working great on one of them. Trying to…

I think you're about 25 years late to the conclusion of the first war, and 10 years late to the second
Post reply on HN